Tuesday, September 6, 2011

The Easy Guide To Hating The NHL - New Fan Edition

Soyou're a new fan of the NHL? There's lots of room on the bandwagon but there are a few ground rules you must know before you can fully comprehend the "League That Everyone Loves To Hate".

For if you take on this challenge, it's important to remember that, unlike other leagues, the NHL's biggest "fans" are those that scream the loudest that the product is crap, the people running it are crap, the players are crap, the owners are crap and most of all, that it's the most dangerous game in the world and it poses an immediate threat to all those in its immediate vicinity (ie. the taxpaying, hard-working, conservative, Tim Horton's guzzling, hockey elitists that comprise the nation of Canada.)

Here are the basics:

Rule 1: You shall never utter an opinion that shows even mild praise for NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman. It is of utmost importance to disregard all relevant facts that seem to prove the NHL has grown into a legitimate top-four sports league and a profitable venture with an improved entertainment value and a brand new television contract once thought impossible. Mr. Bettman is to be referred to at all times as that "New York lawyer", which serves to cast him as the classic "outsider" (ie. not Canadian) which easily enables us elitists to sneer at his accomplishments and embellish his faults into a satisfactory bogeyman, convenient for our shallow and boring water-cooler conversations which are exercises in confirming each other's biases about the game we all pretend to be experts at simply because of our birth certificates.

Rule 2: You shall never admit that the game itself is good. There should always be a preference for new rules to either slow or speed up the game, to take away shootouts, to ban hitting and fighting, to make the rinks bigger, to change the size of the zones or to allow goalies to play the puck. This is important because to express satisfaction with the game or to simply enjoy it for what it is should be considered heresy for the modern hockey fan. To do this would immediately put you in violation of Rule 1, which is never to praise Gary Bettman. Also, it would jeopardize the vast majority of hockey blogs dedicated to hating the game and as we all know, bloggers are never wrong and accredited journalists are never right (unless they too despise the game, and in that case they are merely tolerated). It is of vital importance to express continual dissatisfaction with the new rules put in after the lockout, such as the shootout, the delay of game rule, the crackdown on obstruction and the trapezoid, even though all have contributed to a better product for the fans. These rules are to be seen as an insult to the hardcore hockey fan who love tie- games more than life itself and who frown upon such a naked display of skill that the shootout provides. We don't really trust those uppity skilled players and the shootout is a bit too exciting for our tastes. The only solution is to get rid of it. Get rid of it all.

Rule 3: You shall claim to have the best interests of the players at heart when you demand hitting and fighting be severely curtailed or even banished (after all, the poor dumb hockey player can't think for himself or be relied upon to act in his own best interests health-wise), but when any labour stoppage happens, you are to demonize those same players as greedy, claim they are ruining the game with their cushy guaranteed contracts and their sense of self-entitlement. You will pine for the days of the poor dumb hockey player who was willing to work for peanuts to line the pockets of their rich but benevolent owners. When the work stoppage ends, you are to revert back to your stance of protecting the players from themselves and to blame concussions for all of society's ills, including riots in cities that lose Game 7 of the Stanley Cup final. Hell, just blame the NHL itself for not having its own police force to personally go in and stop the rioting. There is nothing you cannot blame the NHL for. Got a flat tire? Blame fighting. Dog bit you? Blame Gary Bettman. Can't get laid? Blame the trapezoid.

Rule 4: You are to consider trade rumours the real "hockey news" and you are to ignore the more boring, researched to death articles by reporters with actual access to players and general managers. This is an obvious one and we don't need to expand any further.

Rule 5: See Rule 1.

Rule 6: Never talk about Fight Club. Only talk about what a garbage league the NHL is to everyone you know and then spend all winter ignoring your family so you can watch every second of it that you can, including the fights, the hits and the shootouts. Then pretend you are disgusted by the barbarity of it all.

In short, as a new fan, your main responsibility is to be the NHL's worst enemy. Or perhaps, to use the modern lingo, a "frenemy". It doesn't take much knowledge of the league and its rich history to become an immediate expert on the game. Open a blogspot account and start throwing haymakers at every convenient target. This will make you a hero amongst your friends and give you a real sense of accomplishment as you are now able to dismiss a century of tradition and history with a well-timed sarcastic tweet in 140 characters or less (preferably less).

Congratulations. You are now a hockey expert (never mind what Andy Sutton says – after all he's just a poor dumb hockey player who knows much less about the sport than what you learned by sitting on your couch eating corn chips).

Some of this makes sense, and some of it is just bizarre - especially Rule 2.

First you say: There should always be a preference for new rules to either slow or speed up the game, to take away shootouts, to ban hitting and fighting, to make the rinks bigger, to change the size of the zones or to allow goalies to play the puck. This is important because to express satisfaction with the game or to simply enjoy it for what it is should be considered heresy for the modern hockey fan.

So you're saying that the worst kind of hockey fan is the one who wants to tweak the rules, right? The worst hockey fan is the one who can't just be satisfied with the product in front of him. Do I have that right?

Then, you write: It is of vital importance to express continual dissatisfaction with the new rules put in after the lockout, such as the shootout, the delay of game rule, the crackdown on obstruction and the trapezoid, even though all have contributed to a better product for the fans.

This suggests that you're *in favour* of the rule changes that came in after the lockout. So which is it, Jeremy - are rule changes always bad? Always good? Or only the ones that came after the lockout are good, but now the game is perfect and true and we shouldn't ever mess with it again?

The NFL changes rules every single season, and it's the most successful pro sports league in North America, if not the world. Following its lead, by allowing the sport to change and evolve each season, is hardly the worst thing the NHL could do.

Jeremy is in favour of status quo. He likes the powers that be. He likes the rules that be. He doesn't want things to change, but after they have changed, he likes them.

So I say give fighting an automatic game misconduct, double major, ejection, and an automatic suspension for instigating... and after Jeremy sees that the game is better without the 250 pound goons and the staged fighting, he'll be defending these new rules with ironic yet patronizing blog posts.

I actually agree with Canucnik that the fighting could get better as the lighter heavy weights, who can also play hockey at the NHL level, fight less often, but at moments that fit more naturally into the game (eg. in a heated game with good rivalries after a good battle along the boards).

DZ: I'm not criticizing any possible rule changes. I'm criticizing the modern fans desire to see constant changes, not the changes themselves. (and doing so with tongue heavily in cheek in case you did not get the tone of the writing)

I fully realize the game can be tweaked in positive ways, but I get the sense fans will never be satisfied with the game and that was the point I was trying to make. You can make tweaks, but in a year those same fans will want those tweaks reversed as we are seeing now with the rules put in after the lockout.

Sometimes enough is enough. The constant harping about rule changes creates the impression that the game is not good in its current form, when in fact it hasn't been better in over twenty years.

Oman: Yes, I do like the status quo as it is now. The game is quite good compared to some of the crap we all had to endure during the 90's. I don't mind tweaks, but when you talk about taking fighting out of the game, you're talking about changing the very fabric of it. I don't understand why you presume I will naturally see the light when fighting is banned. I happen to like fighting in hockey and am not ashamed to admit it. It is one of many reasons I love the sport. I realize that's not a popular opinion right now but this blog doesn't exist just to reinforce popular opinions.

Traditions aren't always correct, and appealing to them can be a logical fallacy. Sutton was being defensive and his statement was brutal; there was video evidence of what he did and he was simply trying to save his job. I'm glad he's no longer in Ottawa.

I don't mind tweaks, but when you talk about taking fighting out of the game, you're talking about changing the very fabric of it.

If you want to watch fighting because you like fighting, that's a legit conversation. But if you want to argue that fighting is integral to the sport, I have less time for that. Are you saying that Olympic hockey isn't hockey? That NCAA hockey isn't true to the "fabric" of the sport?

And if maintaining the "fabric" of the sport is the crux of your argument here - if that's really your big concern - then I await future posts from you on why we should return to hockey without line changes, get rid of all these new-fangled *lines* on the ice and start calling wrist shots "scoop shots", like they were called back in the good old days.

Surely the introduction of line changes altered the *fabric* of the game more than the elimination of fighting would, Jeremy? And surely we have a better game today as a result.

DZ: The very fact that fighting has survived for over a century in NHL hockey is proof enough that it is more a part of the "fabric" of the game than the changes you mentioned. If it has been such an impediment to the entertainment of the game, then why is it still thriving (although happening with much lesser frequency). And I again say this: How come NHL players themselves largely support fighting staying in the game, including skilled players who don't fight themselves? Perhaps there's something to that.

As for fighting not being in the Olympics and in college, you're right. Fighting is not integral to the sport, but it has been integral to the NHL, and there's a big difference there. The NHL is an entity built around entertainment, not athletics like the college game or the Olympic game. Plus, the Olympics are made up entirely of the best of the best, something that is not possible to achieve in a 30 team league. There are goons in the NHL because there is room for them and there is also a role. We often lose sight of the fact that the NHL provides entertainment first and foremost. It's showbiz. Fighting has always been a part of that. When people don't want to watch fighting is when fighting will become extinct. Legislating it out of the game seems to be a major overreaction.

1. I can't believe this has to be said a year-and-half later, but the Sutton hit was clean at the time. And yeah, there was video evidence that the hit was clean, so suck it. Maybe we should retroactively give Scott Stevens 5 million penalty minutes?

I mean, Olympic hockey is good and all, but unless you have 2 of the following teams: Canada, US, Russia, Sweden and maybe Finland and CR playing, then don't even bother comparing. Is it any surprise that the two teams in the finals last time were all from the NHL? So don't compare that to the NHL and say "look, no fighting = better hockey" cause first of all: it isn't always better, and second of all... when was the last time there was fighting in the Olympics? How can you even compare?

The very fact that fighting has survived for over a century in NHL hockey is proof enough that it is more a part of the "fabric" of the game than the changes you mentioned. If it has been such an impediment to the entertainment of the game, then why is it still thriving (although happening with much lesser frequency).

Are you sure that fighting has been in the game for a full century or more, Jeremy? It's an honest question - the wiki page on fighting in hockey says that from the 1920s through the '60s, fighting became much rarer, but also more brutal. It doesn't have precise numbers to back up those claims.

And I again say this: How come NHL players themselves largely support fighting staying in the game, including skilled players who don't fight themselves? Perhaps there's something to that.

There might be, but it could also just be a case of people opting for the status quo rather than change in general. It could also be that they're not saying *fighting* is important, but keeping authority and the power to severely penalize people out of the hands of the referees is important.

You know many players who want the refs given more discretion on any matter, not just fighting?

The NHL is an entity built around entertainment, not athletics like the college game or the Olympic game.

I think you have a much more Pollyanna view of the Olympics than I do. Perhaps the NCAA for that matter, too.

When people don't want to watch fighting is when fighting will become extinct.

True that. And to judge from the commentary on blogs, message boards and in the media, that day is approaching faster than you might like.

DZ: Fighting was very prevalent before the 1920's and in fact often resulted in serious injury from stick swinging incidents. A good book to read is The Best Of It Happened In Hockey by Brian McFarlane which relates many fighting related anecdotes, some of the most notorious ones happening right in Ottawa. Wikipedia should not be trusted for accurate historical research.

There's a good interview that TSN Radio did with Jamal Mayers last week. I think that it was on the Bryan Hayes show. The podcast is available on the TSN website.

Anyway, Mayers made a distinction between staged fights and fights that flowed from on ice frustrations. He said that, in his opinion, staged fights had no affect on the game.

I wonder how many other players feel the same way.

My view, as a fan, is that if fighting was removed from the game, I wouldn't miss it. That said, I loved the Ray Emery/Marty Biron dust up and the McGratton/Domi knockout. They were definite Sens highlights for me, over the last twenty years.

If fighting is banned, they will still happen, they'll probably just be punished more severely and the staged fights will surely disappear.

This debate is going to flow all season long. I just hope that more thoughtful voices like Jamal Mayers' are heard.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but just remember it's those "Neanderthals" @ the Board of Governors, who call the shots. Blood and guts sell...these guys don't care about the players...the new prototype will be/is Mika, big O, big D, big speed, nice size and good "Dukes!"

True that. And to judge from the commentary on blogs, message boards and in the media, that day is approaching faster than you might like.

I don't know if that is really the case. This seems like your typical "something very tragic happened and makes us think about things a different way... for a moment" kinda thing (for better or worse).

Tomorrow, Sidney Crosby will "talk to the media." Imagine he announces his retirement because of concussion problems? All of a sudden "hits to the head" becomes the new thing (well, not so new... but taken to another level)... which is probably a good thing because they could be (are?) more dangerous than fighting. I'm just saying, this discussion fighting debate has been happening for years.

Again with the Sutton hit (because I got all nostalgic and started watching the highlights from that series after reading this): it looks like he hits Leopold's shoulder first and THEN his head anyways (i.e. the "principle point of contact is not the head). It's more likely that the fall and the fact that he wasn't prepared for the hit knocked the wind out of him big time. Just my thoughts...